Why You Still Need A Lawyer

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Welcome back to the Post Separation Abuse Podcast. I'm your host, Danielle Black. This is the fourth and final episode of our Working as Intended series. If you've been with me across the last three episodes, you've covered a lot of ground. You know what Australian lawyers are actually required to learn and what they are not. You know what an ICL's accreditation actually involves. You know how to test whether any practitioner in the post-separation space is genuinely child focused or simply using the language of it. You understand the transactional lens, how parenting time became something owed to adults rather than given for children. And you understand why the system operates the way that it does. Not from malice, but from a training framework that was never designed to see what children actually need. I know for many of you listening to this, what I've described over the course of these podcast episodes, what I've described is not abstract. Rather, it's the system that you're navigating right now and understanding why it operates the way that it does, while that can be very clarifying, it doesn't make it any easier to be inside it. So today we're going to be looking at a very practical question, the one that I think many of you may have been pondering as you've been listening to the last three episodes. And that is you still need a lawyer. You still need to work with these professionals. You can't opt out of the system entirely. So what do you now do with everything that you now know? That's what this episode is about a strategy. Specifically, how to use a lawyer for what they're genuinely good at without deferring to them on the questions that they were never trained to answer. How to work with the system strategically while understanding its limitations very clearly. The reality is that the parents who hold firm, who bring their own knowledge into the room and refuse to accept legal risk management on the final word on what their children need, those parents do often get different outcomes. Better outcomes.

What Family Lawyers Are Good For

SPEAKER_00 2:30

Let's start by being honest about what lawyers are actually good for, because they are good for a few things. This is me being a bit cheeky. I I know quite a few lawyers, and truly, many of them are wonderful people. But when you're in the family law system, it's very important that you know what your lawyer's for and what they're not for. So when we're talking about what they're actually good for, we need to be precise, and about as precise as we can get is to acknowledge that your family lawyer's expertise is the law, the procedure, the rules of evidence, and what courts will and will not admit in drafting documents that are legally sound. I have heard many people describe lawyers as paper pushers. Apologies if that offends any lawyers listening. Lawyers can be helpful in understanding how particular registrars and judges tend to approach particular types of applications, in knowing what arguments might be likely to land and which ones might not, in navigating the procedural complexity of family law proceedings which can be genuinely complex, genuinely technical, and genuinely require someone who knows what they're doing. That expertise is real and it matters and you need it. A parent who goes into family law proceedings without legal representation can often be at a significant disadvantage. The law is technical, the procedures are precise. The consequences of procedural errors can sometimes be serious. Your lawyer earns their fee yeah, and sometimes it's a bloody big fee by navigating that complexity on your behalf. Your lawyer is for legal risk management, procedural navigation, document drafting, advocacy within the proceedings, and translating the evidence that you bring into the legal language that the court uses. I'll go over that last part again. Translating the evidence that you bring into legal language, that's a crucial reframe. Your lawyer is not the source of knowledge about your children's needs. You are. Your lawyer is the vehicle through which that knowledge enters the legal process in a form that the court can receive. When that relationship is functioning well, when you arrive with knowledge, documentation and a clear position grounded in the research, and your lawyer takes that material and advocates for it effectively within the legal framework, the combination is genuinely powerful. You bring the developmental expertise, they bring the legal expertise. Together those things are much stronger than either alone. The problem arises when those roles collapse. When the lawyer becomes not just the legal navigator, but the strategic authority on what outcomes to seek, on what parenting time to seek, when their risk management assessment of what a court might order becomes the ceiling on what you believe is achievable, when their outcome prediction, shaped by a professional culture that's never been required to prioritize developmental science, becomes your reality before the proceedings have barely started. Your lawyer's job is to help you navigate the legal system. It's not to tell you what your children need, nor to decide what your children need. Those are very different jobs requiring very different knowledge, and only one of them is your lawyers. In

The Risk Lens That Shapes Advice

SPEAKER_00 6:35

the previous episodes I described family lawyers as risk managers and outcome predictors rather than child welfare advocates. I want to develop that a little bit further here because understanding the lens that your lawyer is working through changes how you interpret their advice. When your lawyer tells you that something is quote hard to get, they're making a prediction based on their experience of what courts have historically ordered in cases with similar features. That prediction is shaped by the cases that they have personally run, the professional culture that they operate within, the judges and registrars that they have appeared before, the ideology of contact of relationship with both parents that is still so embedded in family law practice that it really does still function as an unstated assumption rather than a contested position. What their prediction is not shaped by is the developmental science. What the research says that a child at this age and developmental stage actually needs. What the attachment literature tells us about this specific child's primary caregiver relationship. What the evidence on coercive control tells us about whether the pattern of behaviour in your situation warrants the outcome being sought. The lawyer is predicting court outcomes within an existing cultural framework. They're not assessing what the best developmental outcome for your children would be, and then working backwards to how to achieve it. Those are fundamentally different analytical processes and almost no family lawyer is doing the second one. This produces a specific and well documented pattern. A lawyer advises a client that a particular outcome, sole parental responsibility, for example, is quote very difficult to achieve. The client, trusting their lawyer's expertise, just simply accepts that assessment. They moderate their expectations, they settle for an outcome that the lawyer predicted was achievable, rather than holding firm for the outcome that their evidence and potentially the developmental science supported. So the settlement happens, consent orders. The lawyer's prediction ultimately was correct because the client accepted it. The lawyer's worldview is confirmed, and so the next client and the next client and the next client and the next client gets the same advice. Here's what I have observed from my many years of working alongside parents navigating the system. That cycle does not have to be inevitable. It's a product of parents accepting the risk management lens as the only lens. And when parents bring a different lens, one grounded in their evidence and developmental science, attachment theory, all the things that they know about their children and what their children need, when they know what the research supports and they're prepared to hold that position, outcomes can genuinely change. If your lawyer tells you that what you're seeking is, quote, very hard to get or quote not realistic, or that you should, quote, manage your expectations, ask them specifically. Is this your assessment of what you think is legally achievable? Or is this your assessment of what is in my children's developmental best interests? Those are very different questions, and you've got a right to know which question they're answering. I

Sole Parental Responsibility As A Case Study

SPEAKER_00 10:22

want to come back to a specific example here because I think it can illustrate everything that I've been saying more clearly than perhaps anything else can. Sole parental responsibility, that is the decision-making component in Australian family law, and that is where one parent has the legal authority to make decisions about major long-term issues affecting the children without requiring the agreement from the other parent. It's consistently described by family lawyers and barristers as very difficult to obtain. Parents are routinely advised that they're unlikely to get it, that they should not make it a focus of their case, that the threshold is high and that judges are reluctant to grant it. I hear this from clients regularly. Their lawyer has told them not to pursue it, their barrister has told them it's unrealistic. The message, delivered with authority and professional confidence, is don't get your hopes up. My professional observation after many years of working with protective parents navigating the system is that to date, almost every client of mine who has sought sole parental responsibility, who has been informed, prepared, strategically focused, and willing to hold firm, has been successful. Now, I need to be careful about how I say what I'm about to say, because obviously this is not legal advice, and I'm not saying that sole parental responsibility is easy or appropriate in every case. The circumstances absolutely need to warrant it, the documentation needs to support it, and the strategy needs to be solid. And added to that is something that connects directly to everything that we've covered in this series. And I think it's also maybe the key to understanding why the gap exists at all. The 2024

How The 2024 Amendments Change Things

SPEAKER_00 12:18

amendments to the Family Law Act actually opened the door to sole parental responsibility, being much more accessible than at any point in nearly two decades. The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was removed. The court now has greater discretion to make tailored allocations of decision making. The legislative grant has shifted, and it's shifted in the favour of genuinely child focused reasoning. But the lawyer that you're working with today is the same lawyer they were before the amendments. Unless they've actively pursued personal development to fill the gaps in their understanding of what children actually need, they have not updated. And the way most family lawyers approach the question of what the court will or will not order is the same. They look to case law and precedent. Now, here's the problem with that. When the law has only recently changed, there's not yet much precedent to look to. The post 2024 case law is still being built, so when a lawyer looks at a sole parental responsibility application, applying a precedent-driven analytical framework to a question that the new legislation has reframed, they don't see much to work with. They shrug their shoulders, and you might be surprised to learn this, but many lawyers and barristers really are not interested in pursuing something if they're not confident that they're going to be successful. I know you would be thinking, hey, hang on a second. Don't you want to be creating precedent here? Don't you want to be utilising the changes to the Family Law Act to their full advantage for the benefit of children? Apparently not in many cases. And this is where the structural issue we have been describing through this entire series can land directly on your case. To build a sole parental responsibility argument under the new framework, a lawyer needs to be able to reason from children's developmental needs to a tailored evidence-based case for why this particular arrangement would serve this particular child. And to be brutally honest, this is just simply not a skill set that all family lawyers have. Not because they're not intelligent, they are, but because that kind of reasoning was never part of their training. They were trained in the law. They were not trained in child development, and the analytical leap from what does this child need to therefore the legal arrangement that serves this child is this that's not a leap that they've necessarily been taught to make. So the line becomes I don't recommend it, it's hard to get. The client, understandably thinking that their lawyer knows best, doesn't pursue it. The lawyer's view that it's hard to get is reinforced because the client didn't pursue it, so of course they didn't get it. The next client gets the same advice. Lawyers don't challenge themselves, they stay safe, clients are not adequately served, children are actively harmed just another day at the office. So what I'm saying about the gap is this it's not a gap in the law. The law has actually moved in your favour. Rather it's a gap in what your lawyer does not know how to do, and it is also in what the parent brings or doesn't bring to the process. Both of those gaps are closable and one of them's closable only by you. The parents who hold firm and obtain sole parental responsibility are not the parents whose lawyers were more optimistic. I've had some whose lawyers were not pleased about the client seeking sole PR the whole way. Don't be thinking that this is only a possibility if the lawyer's on board right from the start. Rather, the parents who were ultimately successful were the ones who understood why they were seeking it from a developmental and safety perspective. They were able to articulate that reasoning clearly, specifically, consistently. And in case you're wondering, yes, that is the sort of stuff that I work with clients on in coaching. They documented the pattern of behaviour rather than just describing one-off incidents. They were regulated enough to maintain a child focused, credible presentation under sustained pressure, and they didn't accept their lawyer's outcome prediction as being the ceiling of what was achievable. The parents who don't hold the line, who accept the advice that it's too hard, who moderate their expectations, who settle for something less than what the developmental science supports, they're not making a free choice. They're making a choice constrained by a professional framework that was never designed to prioritize what their children need. But they often don't know that. The difference between the outcomes is not the law. It's the knowledge, the preparation, and the willingness to hold a position that the system did not predict and the professionals around them did not support. That is what informed, regulated, strategically prepared parents do. And it's why building that knowledge and growing that capacity is not a supplement to the legal strategy. It's the core foundation of it. When parents accept their lawyer's outcome prediction and settle for less than the evidence supports, the lawyer's prediction is confirmed. They were right. The case is resolved in the way that they predicted, their professional framework is reinforced, the confirmation bias is confirmed again. The next client gets the same advice. But when a parent holds firm, when they pursue the outcome that the research supports, that their evidence supports, with the documentation to back it up and the regulation to sustain credible advocacy and they succeed, something different happens. The lawyer then has a new data point that they didn't have before, a case that went further than they predicted, an outcome that challenged their assessment of what was achievable. And if enough of those data points accumulate, if enough informed, prepared parents arrive at enough lawyers' offices and proceed to outcomes the lawyers predicted were unlikely, well then that lawyer's prediction model has to update. Not quickly, not without resistance, but gradually, cumulatively, the professional culture will change when the data stops confirming the assumptions in the ideologies. This is how individual parent outcomes can contribute to systemic change. Not through petition alone, not through training alone, but through the lived experience of enough practitioners watching enough informed parents achieve outcomes that the system said were unlikely until the system has to actually revise what it says is unlikely. Your case is not just your case. When you hold firm, when you bring the knowledge, the capacity, the advocacy, when you optimize your outcome and achieve something that your evidence, your documentation, the research, the developmental science supports, and the lawyer said it was hard to get, you become a data point, a small specific individual contribution to the evidence base that eventually shifts what that lawyer tells the next parent who sits across from them. Every informed parent who holds firm and gets a different outcome is doing two things simultaneously. They're protecting their own children and they're making the next parent's path a little bit less obstructed, a little bit easier. That's not a small thing.

Holding Your Line With Evidence

SPEAKER_00 20:27

So practical guidance now, because everything that I've said in this episode is only useful if you know how to apply it. You need to understand the division of labour with your lawyer. Your lawyer is the legal expert, but you are the child development and safety expert for your kids. Those are different roles and they require different knowledge. Be clear in your own mind. And when you're talking with your lawyer, about which questions fall within the lawyer's expertise and which ones fall within yours. The legal questions. What is the correct procedural step? How should this document be drafted? What is the admissibility of this evidence? What are the likely consequences of this approach? What are the potential legal consequences of this approach? These are your lawyers' domain. Defer to them with all things related to the law. They know more than you do. But the developmental questions, what does my child need? What does the research say about this type of arrangement for a child this age? Is this outcome consistent with what the attachment science supports? These are not your lawyer's domain. They might have views, they might have opinions. I'm not saying don't consider them, but they don't deserve deference just because they come from a lawyer. Use your lawyer's expertise for legal navigation. Use your own knowledge grounded in the research built on the Through preparation for the developmental position. The combination of those things is your strategy. But this is also where you need to be bringing documentation, not just a narrative. The family law system is not well equipped to process emotional narratives. A parent who arrives with a coherent, documented pattern of behavior, specific dates, specific incidents, specific impacts on the children, recorded in neutral factual language, is bringing something the system will see and be able to use. A parent who arrives with a general account of how things have been, with all of the emotional context, is bringing something that the system will struggle to see and struggle to act on. Documentation is not just evidence of what happened, rather it's also a demonstration of the kind of parent that you are. Every record that you keep kept well can serve two purposes simultaneously. It builds your evidentiary case and it can also help to build your credibility. You also need to know why you are seeking what you are seeking in parenting orders. When your lawyer tells you that something is hard to get, the most powerful response is not an emotional one. Rather, it's far better to say clearly and calmly something along the lines of I understand that's your assessment of the likely outcome. I want to explain why I believe my evidence and the age and developmental needs of my children support this position and why I'm intending to maintain it as my outcome. That's a very different conversation than but I really need this or you don't understand how bad it is or why don't you get it? It's a conversation that demonstrates knowledge, regulation and a child focused rationale, and it's harder for a lawyer to dismiss. It's also much more likely to produce a lawyer who can advocate effectively for your position rather than one who manages your expectations down to match their prediction.

When A Lawyer Pushes Back

SPEAKER_00 24:26

We also need to talk about the reality of when a lawyer says that they can't work with you. Now this can happen. I had a client a few weeks ago whose lawyer told her that they could not continue to act for her if she would not accept their advice. Now that's a real thing that lawyers sometimes say to clients when the client holds firm on a position that the lawyer has assessed as being so unrealistic that the lawyer just simply will not entertain it. Now what this moment is is a lawyer telling you that their risk management assessment trumps your position on what your children need. This lawyer is perhaps a lawyer whose professional framework simply cannot accommodate a client who pushes back. Now that's information. It may very well mean that this particular lawyer is not the right lawyer for you. Not because they're a bad lawyer, but because the combination of their professional lens and your informed position might be creating a dynamic that's not actually serving you well. If this happens, if a lawyer tells you that you must accept their advice or they can't continue to act for you, take a breath and some time before you respond. Consider whether or not the lawyer is telling you something important that you're genuinely not considering, or are they telling you that your informed evidence based position is inconvenient for their risk management approach? Those are different things and they need very different responses. If a lawyer says that they can't work with you unless you follow their advice, that's not automatically a sign that you're wrong. It might be a sign that that lawyer's professional framework simply can't accommodate you. This can be an important time to consider whether other opinions from other lawyers from other firms would give you a different assessment of what may be achievable. Something else for you to consider is to bring the research in writing. If you've got specific research that supports your position, have it in writing and give it to your lawyer, not as a lecture but as a resource. You might frame it as I came across this research on overnight arrangements for children under four, and I think it's very relevant to the position that I'm maintaining. I wanted you to have it. A lawyer who receives that document has two options to engage with it or ignore it. If they ignore it, you now know something important about how they are approaching your matter. A lawyer who engages with it, who reads it, who might ask questions, who may incorporate it into their understanding of your case is a lawyer who is doing something far more than legal risk management. And that's the sort of lawyer that you want to have in your corner. Sometimes the system feels impenetrable, and the professionals around you feel like obstacles rather than allies. And the system was not built for your children. We've established that across our four episodes with a lot of specificity. Rather, the system was designed around fault and property and moral culpability. It was reformed in nineteen seventy five by people partly motivated by financial self interest. It established a training framework in nineteen ninety two that excluded family law and all things to do with children from mandatory content, and it hasn't fixed that in more than thirty years. Three decades. We're still waiting. It's produced a role called the Independent Children's Lawyer and accredits people to fill it with a nine hundred fifty dollar training program. That's accurate at the time of recording this. It allows practitioners across the entire post separation industry to describe themselves as child focused without ever being required to demonstrate that they know what that term means. All of that's true, all of that is enraging, as it should be. And nevertheless, within the system every single day, informed and prepared parents achieve outcomes that the system did not predict and the professionals around them said were unlikely. Not because the system suddenly worked, rather because those parents understood the limitations clearly enough to work within them strategically. Because they brought the knowledge that the system didn't require the professionals to have. Because they held firm when the professionals around them predicted failure. The system is not going to change before your matter resolves, but your matter does not have to wait for the system to change. The knowledge exists right now, the research is there, the frameworks are there, the evidence based position on what your children need is there. Your job, the hardest job and infinitely the most important job, is to bring that knowledge into the process with enough clarity, enough regulation and enough credibility that it can't be ignored. That is not a small thing to ask of a parent who's already carrying everything that all of this demands. I get it. I also know that from so many years of watching and supporting parents doing this work and from doing it myself, I know that it's possible. I know that it can produce different outcomes, better outcomes, and that the children of parents who hold firm are in different positions than the children of parents who deferred. That knowledge gap between what the system knows and what you know, it's a starting point. And you're already further along than you were before this podcast series began. The system was not built to see your children. You were. And in a system that has never been required to prioritize what children genuinely need, a parent who arrives knowing exactly what their kids need and why and how to demonstrate it is a genuinely powerful force. So this

Closing The Series And Next Steps

SPEAKER_00 30:51

is the end of our working as intended series, the four parts of this podcast series. We've covered the training gap in the legal profession, the ICL realities, the history that built the system that we're in, the transactional lens that replaced genuine child focus with adult entitlement, the broader industry of coaches, programs and practitioners abusing the language of child welfare without its foundation, and in this episode, what we can do with all of that. These episodes exist because parents deserve to understand the system that they're navigating, not a sanitized version, not a reassuring version, but the actual version, with the structural failures named clearly and the history told honestly. And because understanding the system is not the end. It's the beginning. It's the beginning of a different kind of advocacy, a more informed, more strategic, more evidence grounded advocacy. One that doesn't wait for the system to fix itself before protecting children, one that brings into the room the knowledge that the system never required its professionals to have. That's what this work is for, that's what this podcast has always been for. If this series has clarified something for you, if you've been listening to these four episodes and maybe recognising yourself and your own situation in them, the postseparation parenting blueprint is the structured way through. It's the work that my team and I do with protective parents, organized, sequenced, and ready when you are. Module 17 covers coercive control in depth. Module 19 covers parental alienation and the important reframes that bring that back to what it really is, which is often coercive control. Module 16 is the capacity building work. The whole of it is built for exactly what this series has been describing, equipping protective parents to bring into the room the knowledge the system never built in. AI Danielle, our digital coach, is also available at any hour on an unlimited basis to Blueprint members. For all those questions that arise at all hours of the day when no human is reachable and the answer just simply can't wait until morning. You can learn more about both the Blueprint and AI Danielle at our website, Danielle Blackcoaching.com.au Thank you so much for being here with me on the podcast in general and also across this particular working as intended series. I really appreciate that you're willing to sit with the difficult and the complicated information in service of yourself and your children. That really is everything. I value your time, I value your willingness to take on board new information, new perspectives. And I look forward to chatting with you again soon.